> and that mathematicians need to find out where they want to go
I think you’re right that mechanically I’m saying the same thing as they are saying “use AI to build your dreams”.
I think the psychology is the difference. Specially, “oh it can now do that too” has to be met with “finally” rather than “no way! That was supposed to be human only”.
eg “what are we after?” Is also likely a question that will be solved by AI in N years after mathematicians chip at it for all that time.
Any and every singular focus will be eliminated. There will be more tho to work on - that’s where the purpose rebirth is. I think.
Maybe said differently, I think one day these same authors will write the post - “more of math is handled by AI. It doesn’t matter. We will work on the infinite amount of it that’s left. Whatever that happens to be, even when we are surprised it wasn’t what we tried to control it to be.”
That will be acceptance. That we’ll be purpose rebirth.
> The important question is, therefore, not whether AI will defeat mathematicians, but which mathematical ends we want AI to serve.
and had the opposite interpretation as I see you having. To me, it reads as the authors [1] acknowledging, as you put it, that
> AI will run and trample anything that stays in front of it.
and that mathematicians need to find out where they want to go:
> Rather, it is an opportunity to clarify what mathematics is all about. We should ask again what we are after when we do mathematics.
This surely does involve purpose death, but also purpose rebirth.
[1]: Silvia De Toffoli and Eamon Duede, instead of Terence Tao, although I imagine Terence endorses the message.